Preparing to Fail: Growing North–South Divisions during the Period of Recess in the Joint Commission Meetings

IF 0.3 0 ASIAN STUDIES
Mark Caprio
{"title":"Preparing to Fail: Growing North–South Divisions during the Period of Recess in the Joint Commission Meetings","authors":"Mark Caprio","doi":"10.33526/ejks.20232301.23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The United States and Soviet Union delegations to the Joint Commission talks ended the initial round of their efforts in May 1946 after but two months of talks designed to guide the creation of a unified Korean government through a process of trusteeship that would last at most five years beyond their helping Koreans form a unified provisional government. At the center of their differences were those over the concept of democracy. Without a shared understanding of this concept, selection of which Korean “democratic political parties and social organizations” to consult proved to be a difficult, if not impossible, task. The two delegations would return to the conference table in July 1947, over a year later. But in the interval between meetings, the two Koreas had distanced themselves to such an extent that, even if the Joint Commission had realized success, the odds of their being able to agree on a framework to build a unified Korean government were greater than when they had first met. Examining the rhetoric from the northern Korean media, but also to a lesser extent that from southern Korean media, this paper attempts to flesh out some of the differences. While trusteeship proved to divide extreme left and right forces, two issues emphasized on the left were the superiority of its bottom-up democracy that focused on granting basic rights to a society (emphasized in the south) over building a level society from the bottom up (as emphasized in the north). The north also emphasized a second issue, that of the actions of “reactionaries” in the south to disrupt the development of this democratic society in Korea. In the end, both sides failed to form democratic societies that matched their rhetoric.","PeriodicalId":40316,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Korean Studies","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Korean Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33526/ejks.20232301.23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ASIAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The United States and Soviet Union delegations to the Joint Commission talks ended the initial round of their efforts in May 1946 after but two months of talks designed to guide the creation of a unified Korean government through a process of trusteeship that would last at most five years beyond their helping Koreans form a unified provisional government. At the center of their differences were those over the concept of democracy. Without a shared understanding of this concept, selection of which Korean “democratic political parties and social organizations” to consult proved to be a difficult, if not impossible, task. The two delegations would return to the conference table in July 1947, over a year later. But in the interval between meetings, the two Koreas had distanced themselves to such an extent that, even if the Joint Commission had realized success, the odds of their being able to agree on a framework to build a unified Korean government were greater than when they had first met. Examining the rhetoric from the northern Korean media, but also to a lesser extent that from southern Korean media, this paper attempts to flesh out some of the differences. While trusteeship proved to divide extreme left and right forces, two issues emphasized on the left were the superiority of its bottom-up democracy that focused on granting basic rights to a society (emphasized in the south) over building a level society from the bottom up (as emphasized in the north). The north also emphasized a second issue, that of the actions of “reactionaries” in the south to disrupt the development of this democratic society in Korea. In the end, both sides failed to form democratic societies that matched their rhetoric.
准备失败:联合委员会会议休会期间南北分歧加剧
1946年5月,参加联合委员会会谈的美国和苏联代表团在经过两个月的会谈后结束了首轮会谈,会谈的目的是通过一个托管过程指导建立一个统一的朝鲜政府。双方分歧的核心是民主概念。如果对这一概念没有共同的理解,那么选择与哪些韩国 "民主政党和社会组织 "进行协商,即使不是不可能,也是一项困难的任务。1947 年 7 月,即一年多之后,两国代表团再次回到会议桌前。但在两次会议之间,朝韩双方的距离已经拉得很大,即使联合委员会取得了成功,双方就建立统一朝鲜政府的框架达成一致意见的可能性也比他们第一次会面时要大。本文通过研究朝鲜北方媒体的言论,同时也在一定程度上研究朝鲜南方媒体的言论,试图找出其中的一些分歧。事实证明,托管制分裂了极左和极右势力,而左派强调的两个问题是,其自下而上的民主制度的优越性,即侧重于赋予社会基本权利(南方强调),而不是自下而上地建立一个公平的社会(北方强调)。北方还强调了第二个问题,即南方 "反动派 "破坏朝鲜民主社会发展的行为。最终,双方都未能建立起与其言论相符的民主社会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信